I'm a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths. An odd thing to be but someone does have to be such and in this flavour of our universe I am. I have written for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Express, Independent, City AM, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer and online for the ASI, IEA, Social Affairs Unit, Spectator, The Guardian, The Register and Techcentralstation. I've also ghosted pieces for several UK politicians in many of the UK papers, including the Daily Sport.

I will admit that I often find myself, when considering Bill McKibben, in the position of that small child upon first seeing Randolph Churchill. Wanting to ask someone, well, “What’s that man for?” So by no means should you take this as being an unbiased comment. But his latest idea is that because the fossil fuel companies cause climate change, and as storms like Sandy are made worse by climate change, then we should start calling the storms after the companies not people:

As gutsy New Yorkers begin the task of drying out the city, here’s one thought that occurred to me last night watching the horrifying pictures from a distance. It’s obviously not crucial right now – but in the long run it might make a difference. Why don’t we stop naming these storms for people, and start naming them after oil companies? … The fossil fuel companies have played the biggest role in making sure we don’t slow global warming down. They’ve funded climate denial propagandists and helped pack Congress with anti-environmental extremists, making sure that commonsense steps to move toward renewable energy never happen. So maybe it’s only right that we should honour their efforts by naming storms for them from now on. At the very least it’s fun to imagine the newscasters announcing, “Exxon is coming ashore across New Jersey, leaving havoc in her wake”, or “Chevron forces evacuation of 375,000″.

Which is of course nonsense, entire argle bargle.

For it isn’t true at all that the fossil fuel companies strap us down and insist that we partake of their products. We are not placed in a straitjacket and force fed oil, no one comes around at night and illicitly sprinkles coal on the backyard and no one at all pipes gas into our cookers so that we must burn it or blow the house up.

Far from it in fact: we demand, by waving our money at them, that these companies offer us these fossil fuels. For we rather like being able to drive places, cook food, heat water and survive a Mid-West winter without having to melt the ice on the pitcher each morning. It is we that demand that we’re able to continue doing this civilisation thing which carbon based fuels allow.

Sure, there are indeed alternatives to them. Unfortunately, all these alternatives, the wind, solar, geothermal, they’re all still more expensive than fossil fuels. I agree, it’s highly likely that they won’t be real soon now but for the moment they are. In fact, that’s precisely where the whole climate change problem is. If all the renewables really were cheaper than fossil fuels then we’d all switch over to using them yesterday and there wouldn’t be climate change. As you may have noted, we didn’t switch yesterday: for the obvious reason that they’re not cheaper yet.

And that’s where McKibben is being so nonsensical. The fossil fuel companies are responding to our desires. They profit from providing these fuels precisely because we desire them, are willing to pay money for them and are willing to pay more for them than they cost to provide. That’s what profit is: the difference between what the consumer is willing to pay for it and the cost of delivering it to that same consumer.

Climate change is indeed a problem and one that I at least am certain is something we ought to do something about. But the problem isn’t in the fossil fuel companies: the problem is in us. Which, of course, is why naming hurricanes after corporations is nonsensical. They’re not the problem: we are.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

This new reality means that we must contemplate a much more challenging future. Whilst the negotiators continue to focus on 2 °C, a growing number of scientists and other expert organisations are now projecting much more pessimistic scenarios for global temperatures. The International Energy Agency, for example, now considers 4°C and 6°C scenarios as well as 2°C in their latest analysis.

######################

Lets open this up a little wider. 2*C is a very optimistic goal that looks unreachable based on present day society. 4*C is even a stretch if we don’t at least quadruple our decarbonization pace. 6*C is a real possiblity. We have just warmed .8*C so far. Sandy, an AGW enhanced hurricane was just a mere cattegory 1. Same scenario when the earth has warmed by 2 degrees centigrade, that same storm will have more energy to draw upon causing a higher level of destruction.

WIth this chicken and the egg scenario, and fossil fuel PR resistance to change and now and now the consumer is blamed. It is not the fault of industry. I’m sitting on my butt till it is cheap enough isn’t working either. Its time to tell industry to get out of the way. Have you any inkling what is going on in Washington, it it clearly the opposite situation.

So in conclusion it is a delusion that it is all the consumers fault for not buying the cleaner product. The destructive power of a warmer climate is coming and we are twiddling our thumbs feeding it fuel for future generations.

I always get a kick when authors chrip that alternatives are “more expensive” than alternatives…simply not the case. Let us tack on the cost of this years drought and “Frankenstorm Sandy” on the cost of fossil fuels…also the cost of all the military adventures we are under going and the pollution, ect. Alternatives, such as, solar, wind, ect are in the long run sustainable. Tim forgets to mention as we continue to spew gigatons of carbon in the air, the climate system will respond to this energy inbalance and weather events will get much more ‘dramatic”. “As Business Week had on the cover “It’s GLOBAL WARMING..STUPID!”

you need a reading comprehension test. McKibben is telling you they’re funding climate denial. Which they are

And your point is well taken, that people voluntarily use oil. Of course they do.

It’s also true that burning this stuff has costs that are not paid by the consumer. So it’s unlikely that the long-term total costs of renewables + nuclear are far, far less than

And you have to give MsKibben a little credit. He receives threats on his life on basically a daily basis. He and most members of academia that speak out. I don’t think oil companies are so unprofessional. But let’s not lie to ourselves here. There are folks clinging to denial, and those trying to wake you up to reality.

For years environmentalists have sold renewable energy as a clean and cheap alternative. Places that have advanced the integration of wind and solar into the power grid have now show that the relative cost is more than four times as expensive, and taken to its limit will more than double the cost of electricity.

The environmentalists are now saying the extra cost can be justified if it leads to the avoidance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that can stop climates change.

This too will soon prove to be unachievable. The need to firm up intermittent and variable renewable power with fossil fuel negates most if not all the benefits of carbon avoidance.

The environmentalists’ “war” on fossil fuel will prove to increase global warming because it will force a more inefficient use of fossil fuel that will increase CO2 emmisions.

Can I point out that both the Big Corporations and the consumers are the problem. We are all human after all. The energy corporations are a problem because 100% of the time they make decisions based on their pocket rather than their morals or ‘bigger picture intelligence’ and they also try to control markets to not allow an expansion of renewable energy firms. Whilst the people are a problem because they dont force the industry to change and they dont switch their lights off or take the train instead.

We may not know the real economic cost of global warming and fossil fuels on the environment until now and in coming years However i am sure the actual extra cost of renewable source’s positive impact will balance out the cheaper cost of fossil fuels and its detrimental effect . Beyond that cleaner sources of energy bring a new set of values to citizens and future generations .